I’ve recently seen a pic with election results in Germany, and it’s spectacular - one block leading in former FRG, another block leading in former GDR (AfD), and it’s very clean.
If you think about it, “Europe” has lots of political stability. No democratic uncertainty whatsoever. AfD pretends to be that, but really after that map I can’t think so.
And the elites are fine with the way US is choosing. They’ll just be the next on it, tinker a bit with the new stuff for their own convenience, soften some sharp bits.
It’s rather that the rest of the world should unite against the west until it’s too late. Pakistan and DPRK should share their nuclear toys so that everyone had a nuke.
The coalition of anti-western states, mostly totalitarian and not very nice, would in some bits work like Curtis Yarvin’s (I know it’s mostly wrong people dreaming of it) idea of paradise - the right of exit (changing a country among them) would de-facto exist, and every such state having nuclear deterrence would mean that those more attractive for immigrants won’t be pressured to stop, which will mean slow evolutionary change for more liberty.
I personally think that (at some point) open immigration is what made the USA more democratic (except racism). Getting more and more different people of non-elite background willing to build a new life is a powerful source of constant hardly predictable change.
It’s sad that I can’t explain these ideas to people closest to me in their worldview, they are just a bit too conserved in their understanding, and for them I’m picking cannibals over “imperfect civilization” for some abstract benefit. But how is that different from “white man’s burden”, I’m not sure, except “white man’s burden” implied some responsibility for what you’re doing, and Kipling was kinda sad the British empire didn’t find that responsibility in itself. I think it’s the same or worse and the more cynical people understood this earlier.
I’ve recently seen a pic with election results in Germany, and it’s spectacular - one block leading in former FRG, another block leading in former GDR (AfD), and it’s very clean.
If you think about it, “Europe” has lots of political stability. No democratic uncertainty whatsoever. AfD pretends to be that, but really after that map I can’t think so.
And the elites are fine with the way US is choosing. They’ll just be the next on it, tinker a bit with the new stuff for their own convenience, soften some sharp bits.
It’s rather that the rest of the world should unite against the west until it’s too late. Pakistan and DPRK should share their nuclear toys so that everyone had a nuke.
The coalition of anti-western states, mostly totalitarian and not very nice, would in some bits work like Curtis Yarvin’s (I know it’s mostly wrong people dreaming of it) idea of paradise - the right of exit (changing a country among them) would de-facto exist, and every such state having nuclear deterrence would mean that those more attractive for immigrants won’t be pressured to stop, which will mean slow evolutionary change for more liberty.
I personally think that (at some point) open immigration is what made the USA more democratic (except racism). Getting more and more different people of non-elite background willing to build a new life is a powerful source of constant hardly predictable change.
It’s sad that I can’t explain these ideas to people closest to me in their worldview, they are just a bit too conserved in their understanding, and for them I’m picking cannibals over “imperfect civilization” for some abstract benefit. But how is that different from “white man’s burden”, I’m not sure, except “white man’s burden” implied some responsibility for what you’re doing, and Kipling was kinda sad the British empire didn’t find that responsibility in itself. I think it’s the same or worse and the more cynical people understood this earlier.